Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.
-spence
|
"I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya..."
Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...
""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."
I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.
The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to
that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.
Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.
Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.
When the Allies stormed Normandy Beach in June 1944, you could call it an i'nvasion', but not in the sense that I gather you mean... i'm confident that you are likening Bush to Gengis Kahn. The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.
Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.